On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:48 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 20:33 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > > > > I know this is not the most functional example - but big projects like > > distributions and other large projects do have some established > > hierarchy - and sometimes they have a process for making those > > decisions. > > Yeah. I'm a little reluctant to get into which projects I think have > good structures and which ones I think suck, since I have this fear of > ending up on Slashdot or something ;-) plus I may just be ignorant of > many of them. I don't want to discuss what projects have good structures either. I think it is more valuable to discuss this projects structure :) > I do think we need some structure, don't get me wrong. And I'd like to > see it defined. I was also sufficiently involved in defining the GNOME > structure to know whether or not I have time to be in charge of defining > this one ;-) So where do we go? How do we make aspects of the structure more transparent - even one-way glass so users can see in would be okay. > At the same time I think structure is partly overrated, it does come > down to the individual people and how they get along. If you're taking a > lot of votes it's a bad sign... I agree. too much voting is silly, but maybe hearing more from the steering and technical committee that already exist is not silly. what do you think? -sv
